A
police department that adopted a policy of tracking the race of each person
stopped while driving violated state labor law by not negotiating the new
procedures with the union representing the officers, the Court of Appeal for
this district ruled yesterday.

The
policy adopted two years ago by the City of Claremont
affects officers’ “terms and conditions of employment” and is thus subject to
the “meet-and-confer” requirements of Government Code Sec. 3505, Justice Walter
Croskey wrote for Div. Three.

The
section is part of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which governs local government
labor relations in California.
The MMBA requires employers and employee representatives to discuss changes in
working conditions before they are implemented, although the employer may
unilaterally implement a change if the parties are unable to reach an
agreement.

Los
Angeles Superior Court Judge Conrad R. Aragon erred, the justice said, by
ruling that the policy involves “consideration of the merits, necessity, or
organization of [a] service or activity provided by law or executive order,”
exempting it from the meet-and-confer rule.

The
policy, implemented in July of last year, requires officers to fill out a
written form for each vehicle stop that does not result in an arrest or
citation.

The information that each officer must collect includes the time and date of
the stop, age group and gender of the driver, driver’s race or ethnicity,
officer’s perception of the driver’s race or ethnicity before the stop, initial
reason for the stop, initial reason for any search and type of search
conducted, outcome of the stop, driver’s city of residence, general location
where the infraction occurred, duration of the stop, year of the vehicle, and
whether the police vehicle was equipped with a camera.

The policy replaced an earlier program, which was in effect when the union and
the city negotiated their last contract, under which officers radioed in a
report for each stop not resulting in arrest or citation. The only information
reported, however, was the driver’s race, age, and gender.

Croskey,
writing for the Court of Appeal, said the implementation of the new policy
represented a significant change in working conditions, rather than a
fundamental policy decision, because an accusation of racial profiling could
affect an officer’s prospects for promotion and relations with the public, or
subject him or her to discipline.

“For
this reason, the manner that the information is collected and the accuracy of
the data and data analysis are matters of great concern to the association’s
members,” the justice wrote. “Moreover, the city’s use of a team of researchers
from outside of the police department and police commission may create the
potential for public dissemination and misuse of data concerning individual
officers, which could impair an officer’s relations with the public and
effectiveness on the job. These potential adverse effects are neither
speculative nor remote and need not be demonstrated by historical facts to be considered
significant.”

Attorneys
on appeal were Dieter C. Dammeier and Michael A. Morguess of Lackie &
Dammeier for the union, and Richard M. Kreisler and Mark H. Meyerhoff of
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for the city.

Peter
Eliasberg of the ACLU Foundation of Southern
California co-authored an amicus
brief in support of the city.